This article is Martin Müller’s response to essays and remarks that critically examined the Russian translation of his article “In Search of the Global East: Thinking between North and South” (Russian Sociological Review. Vol. 19. № 3). The material for the analysis were texts published in the thematic block “The Global East: The Politics of Naming and Knowledge Production” (found in the same issue). The article analyzes these texts according to the standpoint principle, that is, in keeping with the desire to go beyond the dominant social construction of reality in order to understand marginalized groups and regions by giving them a voice. The focus is on the generational differences between the author and his critics, as well as the inevitability of the differences in reactions to the author’s proposal to pay more attention to a region traditionally referred to as post-socialist. Examples of the specific reactions and positions of the critics are given. The author has highlighted the following aspects of the problems associated with the popularization of the concept of the Global East: the non-identity of this concept to post-socialism, the importance of “global” in this concept, the pros and cons of understanding the Global East through the prism of strategic essentialism, and the complex temporality of this concept (“future for the past”).